https://suttacentral.net/discourses

Tipiṭaka—the three baskets
Sixteen gilt and lacquer leaves with two gilt and lacquer book covers.
Wood coated with lacquer, twelve lines to each leaf written in Pali
script in black lacquer, the text interspersed and bordered with
undulating floral and vegetal motifs in gold on an orange ground. Burma,
19th century. 16 x 63 cm.
Discourses
These are our primary
sources for understanding what the Buddha taught. They record the
Buddha’s teachings and conversations on specific occasions with a
diverse range of people. Discourses are called sutta in Pali, which is
spelled sūtra in Sanskrit.

Discourses

Bhikkhu Sujato

Origins
Transmission
The Early Schools of Buddhism
Structure
Canonicity of the Suttas
Suttas in the Buddhist Traditions
Modern Reform and Postmodern Criticism
Translations

The most important body of sacred scripture in Buddhism is the
Suttapiṭaka, the “basket of discourses”. This collection contains the
teachings of the Buddha and his disciples, as collected and transmitted
by the schools of early Buddhism. This is the well-spring of Dhamma,
from which the teachings and practices of the many schools of Buddhism
are drawn.

The term sutta in Pali or sūtra in Sanskrit is used
quite liberally in the Buddhist traditions and may include a range of
later texts. However, we only consider the earliest of these, which are
the texts included in the Suttapiṭaka of the Pali canon, and the various
corresponding collections and texts in other languages. Not all of
these texts stem from the very earliest period, but we aim to be
inclusive, so as to not miss any of the early scriptures. Generally
speaking, they represent the first few centuries of Buddhist texts, with
a special emphasis on those that may be plausibly attributed to the
historical Buddha and his immediate disciples. Later texts such as the
Mahāyāna sūtras fall outside our scope, except in cases where they quote
from the early texts.

SuttaCentral includes almost all of the
scriptures of this period. Exceptions include such things as certain
manuscripts that are unpublished or unavailable, or too fragmentary, and
some passages or quotes found in later texts and commentaries in
Chinese and Tibetan.

This article is a general overview, and more
specific details may be found on the pages for each collection. Please
note that this article deals with the history and nature of the textual
collections, not with the content and themes.
Origins

The
Buddha lived around the 5th century BCE, and lived and taught in the
nations of the Ganges plain in northern India, especially the regions
known today as Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. He had a long career, and was
said to have taught for forty-five years. The canonical Vinaya texts
relate how, after his passing towards the end of the 5th century BCE,
the Buddha’s followers, led by his closest disciple, Ānanda, collected
his teachings at the great First Council in Rājagaha (modern Rajgir),
ensuring their survival until today.

There are several different
accounts of the First Council, and they vary somewhat in the details of
the texts recited there. But it seems likely that the main content was
similar to what is included today in the four main nikāyas, as well as
the six early books of the Khuddaka, together with the early portions of
the Vinaya. These are sometimes referred to as the Early Buddhist Texts
(EBTs). It’s not the case that everything recited at the Council was
identical with what we have today. Even the traditions acknowledge that
there were additions. However, it seems reasonable to accept that the
bulk of the content of these texts stems from this time. The main
changes were in structure and arrangement, while changes to content were
limited and readily identifiable.

The texts would have
originally been in a Prākrit, that is, a dialect of Middle Indo-Aryan
closely related to Sanskrit. The exact form of Prākrit is unknown, and
indeed it may not have been entirely standardized, since monastics from
the earliest times were using different dialects. Indications in the
Pali texts suggest that they were derived from an earlier version in
Māgadhī, that is, the language of the kingdom of Magadha. It appears
that they were standardized in later centuries to a dialect similar to
that used widely across central India for inscriptions, with a partial
Sanskritization. Nevertheless, these languages differ mostly in
phonology, and apart from a few edge cases, changes from one form to
another do not affect the meaning.
Transmission

For many
years, the texts were passed down in an oral form. This was organized
with groups of reciters, all reciting together the same text to ensure
accuracy. We are often skeptical that an oral tradition can maintain
texts accurately for a long time. This is our cultural bias, since all
we’ve known are written texts. But oral transmission was normal in
ancient India. The brahmanical Ṛg Veda, for example, was passed down in
letter-perfect form for hundreds, maybe thousands, of years before being
written down. No matter what the medium of transmission—oral, written,
or digital—corruptions and changes can creep in. The most important
thing in maintaining accuracy is not the medium, but the care and
dedication of the people doing the work. The Buddhist texts, through the
use of such devices as repetition, are highly optimized for reliable
transmission of doctrine.

The Sri Lankan historical chronicles
record that in 29 BCE, to guard against upheaval in the country, the
Pali canon was written down in the Aluvihare Rock Temple. While we don’t
have historical records for the mainland, it seems safe to assume that
texts there were written down around the same period. Indeed, a range of
Buddhist manuscripts from northern regions have been found dating from
the early centuries CE, one of which has been carbon dated to around 75
CE.

Due to the materials and climate, no such early manuscripts
of the Pali canon have survived. There are a few earlier passages in
inscriptions and the like, but the bulk of our Pali texts come from
manuscripts that have been recopied in the past few centuries.

The Chinese texts originate from manuscripts of various schools that
were taken to China and translated there by teams of monks. Each
collection has a different origin, and due to the meticulous records of
the Chinese canon, the translators and dates of these are usually well
known. Most of the early Buddhist discourses were translated around the
5th century CE, though some were earlier and some later than this. It is
not always possible to determine exactly what the original language of
the manuscripts was, but in many cases it was probably Sanskrit.
However, a variety of other Indic languages such as Gandhārī or Buddhist
Hybrid Sanskrit may have been used.

Likewise, the early texts found in Tibetan stem from Sanskrit texts that were translated in Tibet over millenium ago.

None of the modern forms of Buddhism normally use Sanskrit texts, as
the northern schools preserved only the translations. The texts in
Sanskrit and other early Indic dialects stem from a range of fortuitous
finds in the past century. Certain Sanskrit texts were discovered in
ancient manuscripts in Nepal and Tibet, where they had lain mostly
untouched since being brought from India nearly a thousand years ago.
Several finds have unearthed more texts. Manuscripts from Gilgit and
elsewhere in central Asia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan contain suttas in
several different languages, ranging from extensive texts to tiny scraps
containing only a few letters. Some were recovered from proper
archaeological research, but other manuscripts simply appeared on the
black market and their origin can only be guessed at. These manuscripts
represent the spectrum of Buddhist literature of the time, including
early suttas, Vinaya, Abhidhamma, legends, Mahāyāna texts, and
commentaries. Here we are only concerned with the early sutta material.

Such texts are sometimes called the “Dead Sea Scrolls” of Buddhism, but
this is misleading. While the Dead Sea Scrolls contained new texts
indicating a radically different perspective on early Christianity,
these Buddhist suttas are almost always minor variations on what we find
in the Pali canon. They serve to indicate the spread and diversity of
Buddhism, and offer clarification on many points of history and detail,
but they do not radically revise our understanding of the teachings.
The Early Schools of Buddhism

The century after the Buddha passed away witnessed a transformation in
Indian political history. The 16 nations of the Buddha’s time were
amalgamated by the superior force of the Magadhan kingdom, which became
an empire encompassing most of the Indian mainland. At the same time,
the invasion by Alexander the Great established Greek kingdoms in the
north-west, initiating an era of international trade.

The
Buddhist community, sponsored by kings such as Aśoka, took full
advantage of these favorable conditions to spread the Dhamma over the
Indian subcontinent and further. Less than two centuries after the
Buddha’s passing, Buddhist communities were thriving in regions as
far-flung as Sri Lanka and Afghanistan.

But with this growth came
new challenges. The community began to diverge, driven primarily by
distance, but also by doctrinal disagreements and personality clashes.
Soon there were, according to the traditional reckoning, “eighteen”
schools. This is just a conventional number, and there were really four
or five major groups of schools, with many regional branches.

Each of these schools would have preserved a scriptural collection.
Today we have only a small selection of these. Nevertheless, though much
is lost, we do have enough to get a reasonable idea of the similarities
and differences. Note that, unlike the Vinaya texts, it is sometimes
difficult to determine the school affiliation of a sutta collection.

For the purposes of the Discourses, the following schools are most important.

Theravāda: More precisely known as the Mahāvihāravāsins, the
“Dwellers in the Great Monastery (at Anurādhapura)”, this group was
established in Sri Lanka by Aśoka’s son, Mahinda. They passed down the
collection known as the Pali Tipiṭaka, or Pali Canon. The collection
retains the characteristics of its mainland origin, possibly from
Avanti, and few changes were made on the island. This school exclusively
used Pali for its canonical texts.
Sarvāstivāda: This was an
influential school, or group of schools, mostly based in the north-west
of India. We possess an extensive range of their Discourses—a Majjhima, a
Saṁyutta, most of a Dīgha, and several partial collections. The bulk of
the extant sutta texts in Sanskrit, Chinese, and Tibetan hail from this
school, or one of their branches such as the Mūlasarvāstivāda. Their
distinctive doctrine was that all phenomena in some sense “exist” in the
past, present, and future. However, like all sectarian doctrines, this
made little to no impact on their canonical texts. Their texts were
passed down mainly in Sanskrit, and sometimes in a sanskritized Prākrit.
Dharmaguptaka: A school doctrinally almost indistinguishable from
the Theravāda, but based in Gandhāra, in modern Pakistan and
Afghanistan. They mainly used the language we call Gandhārī, and we
possess a Dharmapada and some suttas in the original. The Dīrghāgama in
Chinese (DA) is believed to have been translated from a text of this
school.
Mahāsaṅghika: Some texts in Hybrid Sanskrit are from
this school, and the Ekottarikāgama (EA) in Chinese is sometimes
attributed to them, though this is unclear.

Of these, only the
Theravāda still exists as a school today, with an unbroken history of
transmission of an entire collection in the original language. In
addition, there is a complete set of commentaries for all the texts. For
these reasons, the Pali collection has been, and will continue to be,
the primary source for the early Buddhist teachings.

For the
rest, we have collections and fragments that were preserved primarily in
Chinese translation, and to a lesser extent in Tibetan. The few texts
in Sanskrit and other early Indic languages stem from chance finds;
thousand year-old manuscripts preserved in mountain monasteries in Tibet
or Nepal, or even older texts dug up from the sands of Central Asia.
These texts are much less complete than the Pali, have been little
studied, and pose a range of difficult linguistic and practical
problems. Nevertheless, they have a unique value in offering an
alternate source for checking and comparing the Pali texts.

The
unanimous opinion of the scholars who have studied these texts is that
they are mostly consistent in doctrine and content, and differ mainly in
arrangement and organization. While it is true that the differences are
not small, and it is hard to generalize, it is clear that the early
community saw their main task to preserve verbatim the words of the
Buddha, especially the essential teachings, a task that they took very
seriously.
Structure

In the Buddha’s forty-five years of
teaching, he was mainly concerned to address the person or people he was
with, to appease their suffering. Thus he was not concerned with
creating a overarching canon of his teachings. However, he did give some
indications of a broader system of classifying the teachings. Sometimes
he mentioned certain doctrinal formulations as the central content of
his teachings—the four noble truths, or the sets of teachings on
practice that came to be known as the bodhipakkhiyā dhammā, the “things
leading to awakening”. These sets of doctrines form the backbone of the
Saṁyutta Nikāya. He also mentioned an organization by literary style,
known as the aṅgas or “branches”. While the Pali texts mention nine
aṅgas, the northern texts typically mention twelve, and there is some
indication that originally there may have been only three or four.

Regardless of how the texts were organized in the Buddha’s life, early
on the schools reorganized the texts in the system of nikāyas or āgamas
as we have them today. (The term nikāya, a “collection” or “group”, is
preferred in the Theravādin context, while the northern tradition
usually used āgama, which has the sense of a “tradition” or
“transmission”; however, these usages are not specific and may be used
in any tradition.) This reorganization may well have started from the
First Council, or at any rate, not much later. The primary motive was to
arrange the collection into more manageable sections in order to
facilitate memorization. The nikāyas were not absolute or fixed
categories, but standards or templates which the different branches
implemented in their own way.

Each of the schools seems to have
had main four nikāyas. The sequence of these is not fixed. The form
adopted on SuttaCentral is the well-known sequence as used in the Pali
tradition. In other schools, as implied by the accounts of the First
Council, the collections were in different orders, such as placing the
Saṁyutta first. Note that in the Chinese canon, the editors of the
Taishō edition rearranged their material under the influence of the Pali
canon to adopt the same sequence.

Each of the nikāyas includes
material that was edited and arranged, and sometimes added to, over a
period of time. While each collection contains some unique texts, for
the most part the differences in the number of discourses is simply due
to the fact that a given discourse may be assigned a different place in
different collections.

Long: A collection of the “long”
discourses. The Dīgha has more elaborate literary ambitions than the
remaining texts, and one of its aims seems to have been the conversion
of brahmins, an educated class used to sophisticated literature. The
Pali Dīgha Nikāya (DN) has 34 discourses, the Chinese (Dharmagupta)
Dīrghāgama (DA) has 30. An old Sanskrit manuscript of the
Sarvāstivādins, largely unpublished, indicates that their collection
contained 47 discourses. In addition, there are a number of individual
Dīrgha discourses preserved in Chinese translation.
Middle: The
Majjhima contains a group of “middle length” discourses, 152 in Pali
(MN), and 222 in the Chinese Sarvāstivāda version (MA). As with the
Dīgha, there are a number of independent discourses in Chinese, too. The
Majjhima contains a wide range of discourses on diverse topics, with an
emphasis on dialogue and discussion.
Linked: The “linked” or
“connected” discourses consists of a large number of smaller discourses
organized mostly by topic, but also sometimes by the person who is
involved. Here we find large collections of discourses on such key
Buddhist topics as dependent origination, the five aggregates, the four
noble truths, and the eightfold noble path. We have the Saṁyutta Nikāya
(SN) in Pali, and a comparable Saṁyuktāgama of the Sarvāstivādins in
Chinese translation (SA). In Chinese we also find two smaller,
incomplete translations. In addition, there are a significant number of
Saṁyutta style texts in Tibetan and Sanskrit.
Numbered: The
“numbered” or “numerical” discourses are usually known as Aṅguttara
Nikāya in Pali. However, the Pali tradition also knows the form Ekottara
(“one-up” or “incremental”), and this is the form usually found in the
northern collections. These collections organize texts in numbered sets,
from one to eleven. Compared to the other nikāyas, they are more
oriented to the lay community. The Ekottarikāgama (EA) in Chinese is a
highly unusual text, which features a range of variations within itself
when it comes even to basic doctrines. It shares considerably less in
common with the Pali Aṅguttara than the other collections do with their
counterparts. In addition, there is a partial Ekottarikāgama in Chinese,
as well as a variety of individual discourses and fragments in Chinese
and Sanskrit.

The four nikāyas in Pali are a highly integrated
corpus of texts, and we continually find passages, teachings, and
phrases that are shared throughout. It is possible to discern
differences in emphasis and orientation between them, but this should
not obscure the fact that the bulk of the main doctrines are shared.
Lacking complete sets of āgamas from other schools, it is hard to know
for sure that their collections were similarly integrated, but it seems
likely that this was the case.

Early discourses that were not
included in the nikāyas were gathered by the Pali tradition into their
Khuddaka or “minor” collection. It’s not entirely clear why these
weren’t simply included in the four nikāyas; originally it may have
simply been a matter of organizational convenience. The Pali has six
works in the Khuddaka that are considered to belong to the early period.
These mostly consist of verse, with some narrative and doctrinal
material in prose.

Dhammapada
Udāna
Itivuttaka
Sutta Nipāta
Theragāthā
Therīgāthā

While these texts are considered early, they are on the whole probably a
little later than the main nikāyas. Certain chapters of the Sutta
Nipāta have often been regarded as an especially early and authentic
portion of the canon, but this should not be over-interpreted. Other
parts of the Sutta Nipāta are clearly late. And there is nothing in the
early portions to indicate that they are earlier than the bulk of the
prose discourses.

The collection seems to have been considered an
open one until quite a late date. The Burmese recension of the Pali
canon even includes the Milindapañha, a text that could not have been
written less than three hundred years after the Buddha’s passing.

It is unclear whether each school had its own version of the Khuddaka.
However, many of these texts, especially the Dhammapada, have
counterparts in the northern collections. It seems likely that despite
differences in organization, each school would have had some collection
loosely corresponding to the Khuddaka.

The remaining texts in the
Khuddaka were added later. In style and content, they represent a
striking shift from the early texts. They indicate different
developments within the Buddhist community in the centuries following
the Buddha. These later texts include the extensive collections of
Jātaka tales, found in Pali and other traditions. Note that in the Pali
tradition, only the verses are canoncial, while the stories themselves
are found in the commentary.
Canonicity of the Suttas

The
early Discourses are regarded as canonical in all schools of Buddhism.
They are considered to be Buddhavacana, the “words of the Buddha”, and
are revered as sacred scripture. Each school, of course, accepts other
texts as canonical also; but the Discourses, together with the Vinayas,
are the main areas of overlap between the schools.

This general
picture, however, gets more complicated when we try to pin down the
details. While the Discourses are largely similar in each canon, they
are not identical. Each of the three main schools maintains its own
distinct canons: the Theravāda of South and Southeast Asia have their
texts in Pali; Buddhists of Central Asia use Tibetan; and in East Asia
the canon is in Chinese. A full set of nikāyas are in Pali; extensive
collections are found in Chinese; and limited selections are found in
Tibetan. The Sanskrit and other early Indic texts are not part of any
formal canon, but the texts are nevertheless canonical in the sense that
they are recognized as being the same as the texts in the canon.

So while we can say that the early Discourses are in principle
considered canonical generally, for practical purposes each of the
schools has a specific set of early Discourses found in their own canon.
Suttas in the Buddhist Traditions

In traditional Buddhist education, the Discourses have usually not been
directly taught. Rather, the teachings and principles found in the
Discourses have been assimilated and organized in later texts, which
became the medium of education. In the Theravāda, Discourses were until
recently passed down in Pali, and so were only accessible to those,
usually monks, who learned Pali. And not all those who learned Pali
would study the Discourses. It seems that teaching was for practical
purposes handed down in local monastic traditions, based on handbooks
and sets of notes and commentaries. Before modern times, it would have
been rare to find any but the largest monasteries that actually
possessed a full set of the Tipiṭaka. Today, printed sets of the canon
are widely available in both Pali and translation; but they are still
often left in a locked cabinet on the shrine, unread.

For the
most part, Buddhists might be familiar with a small set of popular
discourses. These would include such texts as the Dhammacakkappavattana
Sutta—the famous first sermon of the Buddha—and some short texts used
for protection chanting and as the basis of sermons for the laity, such
as the Maṅgala, Ratana, and Metta Suttas.

Apart from scholars,
most Theravāda Buddhists do not clearly distinguish early Discourses
from other sacred texts. The word sutta can mean simply “sacred
scripture” and may even be used for such things as magic formulas and
the like. While Buddhists are generally aware that there is such a thing
as the Tipiṭaka that contains the words of the Buddha, only educated
Buddhists have a clear idea of the contents. There is no tradition in
Buddhism comparable to the Bible readings of the Christian Mass, and so
no standard way of communicating the contents of the texts directly to
the people.

In some Buddhist traditions, it is considered
mandatory for ordained monks to memorize and study closely certain
portions of the ancient texts. Sri Lankan monks, for example, memorize
the Dhammapada. However, this is not the case in Thailand, for example,
where there is no education requirement for monks. Even in the nine
years of the formal Dhamma study curriculum in Thailand, the canonical
Discourses are not studied, as they are considered too sacred.

In
East Asian Buddhism, traditional education focused on the Mahāyāna
sutras and the texts of the Chinese masters, and there is little
evidence that the early discourses were widely studied. It is sometimes
said that the translation style of the āgamas compares poorly with the
more elegant diction of the Mahāyāna translations by Xuanzang and other
masters. And the early discourses are, of course, not organized for easy
reading and study.

Tibetan Buddhism includes study of early
Buddhist schools as part of its regular curriculum. However, this refers
to the Abhidhamma doctrines of the later schools. A reasonable grasp of
the early Buddhist texts is, nevertheless, possible to achieve in
Tibetan. Even though full āgama texts are lacking, substantial passages
from the early texts are found in the Upāyika, which is a compilation of
passages referred to in the Abhidharmakoṣa, and in other scattered
texts.
Modern Reform and Postmodern Criticism

From the middle
of the 19th Century, European and Asian scholars began to study the
Buddhist texts on historical grounds. Whereas traditional scholarship
remained within each school, interpreting them within their local
contexts, the new scholarship aimed to locate the texts in historical
time and place. This approach was both critical—in the sense of being
skeptical of traditional claims to authority, and requiring evidence to
support claims—and constructive, in the sense that it aimed to build a
coherent and meaningful historical picture in which to understand the
texts.

Modernity brought a range of new techniques and achievements. These include:

Comparative study of the previously isolated scriptures in Chinese,
Pali, Tibetan, and Sanskrit revealed both similarities and differences.
Based on the accounts of Chinese pilgrims, archaeologists unearthed
a series of ancient sites in India, proving that familiar sutta
locations like Sāvatthī or Rājagaha were real places.
Comparison
of Buddhist scriptures with Hindu and Jaina texts allowed for a better
understanding of the cultural forces active in the Buddha’s time.
Application of text-critical methods established the historical and
doctrinal evolution of the Buddhist texts and their relation to one
another.
The Aśokan pillars and inscriptions were discovered and
deciphered, allowing for a proper historical understanding of this
seminal Buddhist monarch.
There was a new emphasis on the early Discourses as the historical source for the Buddha’s teachings.

Modernist developments such as these are not confined to Western
scholarship, but have been conducted in conjunction with textual and
practical reforms throughout Asian Buddhism. Each of the traditions of
Asian Buddhism has participated in and applied these developments in
diverse ways. Some examples include:

In Theravāda, the Fifth and Sixth Councils reasserted the centrality of the Pali canon.
Translations of the Pali canon have been made into modern Asian
languages and widely distributed across the Buddhist world, along with
English translations.
The reformist Buddhism of King Mongkut in
19th Century Thailand was largely inspired by modernist ideas of textual
and disciplinary reform.
Modern approaches to meditation were
developed based on Pali texts. The Burmese vipassanā schools took the
Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta as their core text, making this the single most
influential text in the modern practice of meditation. In Thailand,
reform movements such as the Forest Tradition, or Ajahn Buddhadāsa’s
explicitly sutta-based approach, rejected traditional contemplative
practices based on magical invocations, and advocated a return to the
body-focused and grounded mindfulness practices of the early suttas.
The hugely influential Taishō edition of the Chinese canon was
developed by Japanese scholars who had studied text-critical techniques
in Germany. They rearranged the canon to put the āgamas in pride of
place at the start of the collection, in the sequence found in the Pali.
They also included limited information on Pali parallels.
The
empirical and rational strands of the early texts were emphasized,
arguing for an essential compatibility with modern science. This
provided the basis for the later application of scientific method to
mindfulness meditation, which has proved crucial to the global
acceptance of meditation as an evidence-based approach to happiness,
stress relief, and psychological wellness.

It remains the case
that direct study of the suttas is a minority practice. However, across
Asia we find popular reform movements that emphasize the central
importance of the suttas. Sutta study is most popular in Sri Lanka,
where there is a proliferation of teachers and movements advocating a
return to the suttas. The hugely popular monk Venerable Kiribathgoda
Gnanananda Thero is controversial for his insistence on treating the
suttas as the primary sources of Dhamma. In Thailand, the Buddhavacana
movement of Ajahn Kukrit Sotthibalo is changing the face of contemporary
Thailand, bringing many people to read the suttas for the first time.
In Taiwan, similarly, the recently deceased master Yin Shun emphasized
the historical primacy of the early texts, arguing that there was an
essential continuity between them and early Mahāyāna. And in countries
outside the regions of traditional Buddhism, teachers such as Ajahn
Brahm, Bhikkhu Bodhi, and many others advocate the teachings of the
suttas.

Since the 1980s, such modernist reforms have come under
postmodern criticism, mostly from American scholars who specialize in
later forms of Buddhism. These criticisms aim to dislodge the modernist
consensus, arguing that we have no real way of knowing what the Buddha
taught, or the provenance of the Pali and other texts. A variety of
specific arguments attempt to refute key claims of the modernists, such
as the idea that the Buddha’s teaching was essentially rational. These
arguments have been repeatedly criticized by experts in the field. The
postmodern approach has yet to produce constructive results comparable
to those of modernism.
Translations

One of the most concrete
outcomes of the modernist reforms has been the availability of
translations of the early texts. Until now, almost all such translations
have been from the Pali canon. But a few translations from the Chinese,
Tibetan, and Sanskrit texts are now starting to appear.

Work
began in Europe with isolated translations such as Viggo Fausböll’s
translation of the Dhammapada in 1855 and the Sutta Nipāta in 1881.
Under the leadership of T.W. Rhys Davids, the Pali Text Society, founded
in 1881, undertook the task of translating the entire canon into
English. These translations were groundbreaking, but have for the most
part been replaced by a more modern and accurate generation of
translations by scholars such as Bhikkhu Bodhi. We include some of the
older translations on SuttaCentral, but for the most part they are
primarily of historical interest, since not only is the language
archaic, but they contain many errors.

Major translations from
the Pali have also been made into Thai, Sinhala, Burmese, Cambodian,
Vietnamese, Japanese, Hindi, and most recently Bangla. Most of these
have been digitized and are available on SuttaCentral. However, we are
still looking forward to including the Bangla and Cambodian
translations, and the Japanese translation, though in the public domain,
is unavailable due to the actions of the publisher.

It’s not
always possible to easily find out the translation methods and
approaches of these different editions. However, my understanding is
that the above translations were all made directly from the Pali. In
addition to this, there have been many secondary translations made from
the English translations. Most of the remaining translations in
SuttaCentral fall into this category, though not all. Some translations,
for instance, in German or Norwegian, have been made directly from the
Pali.

The new set of translations made from the Pali for
SuttaCentral by myself and Bhante Brahmali build on this tradition. They
aim to provide accurate, clear, and idiomatic translations of the early
texts in Pali.

https://suttacentral.net/vinaya

Monastic Law
The texts on Monastic Law (vinaya) detail the lifestyle, rules, and
procedures for Buddhist monks and nuns. They provide the guidelines for
Buddhist monastics to this day, and in addition, paint a detailed and
vivid picture of everyday life in ancient India.
The Monastic Law

Bhikkhu Brahmali

Origin
Textual Transmission and the Schools
Content
Modern Perspectives
Commentaries
References and Further Reading

The Vinaya Piṭaka, “The Basket of Monastic Law,” contains the rules
that are binding on monastics and the regulations that apply to monastic
communities. The Monastic Law is available in more recensions than any
other part of the Tipiṭaka. There is a full version in Pali, and four
complete versions extant in Chinese translation, all belonging to
different schools of early Buddhism: Mahāsāṅghika, Dharmaguptaka,
Mahīśāsaka, and Sarvāstivāda. The Chinese Tipiṭaka also preserves other
Vinaya related texts, such as an independent bhikkhu pātimokkha of the
Kāśyapīya School and several more or less school-specific Vinaya texts.
The Vinaya of the Mūlasarvāstivāda school exists in three versions: a
complete text in Tibetan translation, a mostly complete version in
Chinese, and substantial portions in Sanskrit. There are also several
Vinaya texts, as well as a large number of fragments, in Sanskrit and
other Indic languages, mostly of Mahāsāṅghika, Sarvāstivāda, and
Mūlasarvāstivāda provenance.
Origin

The word vinaya, here
translated as “Monastic Law,” originally probably meant “training,” as
can be seen from its usage in the Sutta Piṭaka, “the Basket of
Discourses.” In this sense it complements the Dhamma, the doctrine or
teaching, which provides the instructions on how the training is to be
achieved. The compound dhamma-vinaya is a common one in the earliest
literature and might be rendered as “theory and practice.” Gradually the
meaning shifted to refer to the rules of conduct instead, thus
referring to the training in a narrower sense. Although the former usage
is more common in the suttas, it is this latter usage of vinaya which
has become the dominant one and which has prevailed to the present day.

The Monastic Law developed over a period of several centuries after the
Buddha’s passing away. Yet given the close agreement on some of the
most fundamental aspects of the Vinaya across all surviving scriptures,
it seems likely that the earliest parts originated in the lifetime of
the Buddha. This includes the rules of conduct binding on all monastics,
known as the pātimokkha, and several of the most important procedures
that regulate the proper functioning of the monastic communities. It is
only these parts of the Vinaya that are part of the Early Buddhist Texts
in the strictest sense.

Around this kernel the Vinaya gradually
expanded. Over time, the pātimokkha rules gained a canonical commentary
that included origin stories, word analyses, detailed permutation series
on the applicability of the rules, non-offense clauses, and case
studies. For the rest of the Vinaya, known as the Khandhakas, the
expansion was less structured, with minor rules, stories, and procedures
apparently being added as the need arose. It has been shown by
Frauwallner (1956) that, despite a significant common core, many of the
details of this part of the Vinaya vary between the schools.

The
exact cut-off point after which no new material was added to the
Canonical Vinaya is impossible to pin down and it would have varied from
school to school. On linguistic grounds, it seems likely that the
majority of additions to the Pali Vinaya, with the exception of the
Parivāra, were done prior to its arrival in Sri Lanka in the third
century BCE. After this point new material was added to the commentarial
literature, which, despite its likely origin in the mainland, was
greatly expanded and developed in Sri Lanka.

The Vinaya was not
established as part of an overall plan to provide the monastic community
with a legal structure, but was laid down rule by rule in response to
problems as they arose in the monastic Order. It is the Dhamma, the
teaching, that guided the laying down of the Vinaya, and the Vinaya is
subsidiary to and bound up with the broader concerns of the proper
practice of the Buddhist path. A large number of rules were laid down in
response the lay people’s criticism of the monastic Order.
Textual Transmission and the Schools

The number of extant Vinaya texts is quite large and the process of
transmission and translation into various Indic languages and especially
into Chinese and Tibetan is quite complex. In what follows I give an
outline of how the main Vinaya texts were transmitted to China and
Tibet.

The first split in the monastic Order occurred between the
Mahāsāṅghikas and the Sthaviras, very roughly around 200 BCE. Each of
these branches subsequently split into a number of sub-schools. Of the
six complete Vinayas still extant, only one belongs to the Mahāsāṅghika
group and the remaining five to sub-schools of the Sthaviras. We should
therefore expect to find shared qualities between the Vinayas of the
Sthavira schools that are lacking in the Mahāsāṅghika Vinaya. Indeed,
the Khandhakas of the Mahāsāṅghika Vinaya are structured differently
from those of all the other Vinayas.

The sub-schools of the
Sthavira branch for which we still have complete Vinayas fall into two
sub-groups: the Sarvāstivāda and the Mūlasarvāstivāda on the one hand,
and the Dharmaguptaka, the Mahīśāsaka, and the Theravāda on the other.
First the Sarvāstivādins split from the rest of the Sthaviras. Over time
the Mūlasarvāstivāda emerged as a sub-school of the Sarvāstivāda, and
for this reason the Vinayas of these two schools share certain
characteristics (Frauwallner, 1956: 194). After the Sarvāstivādin split,
the remainder of the Sthaviras divided further, including into the
Dharmaguptaka, the Mahīśāsaka, and the Theravāda. Yet these three
schools were probably no more than regional variations of each other
(Sujato, 2012: 102) and consequently their Vinayas have much in common
(Frauwallner, 1956: 181).

Apart from the Theravāda Vinaya, the following are the main Canonical Vinayas still extant:

A complete Mahāsāṅghika Vinaya, found in the Chinese Tipiṭaka at T
1425, was translated into Chinese by Faxian and Buddhabhadra in 416-418
CE. Although its section of Khandhakas is structured differently from
that of the other schools, the content appears to largely overlap.
Further study is required to clarify the degree of divergence.
Substantial parts of this Vinaya has also been preserved in Buddhist
Hybrid Sanskrit, including the Mahāvastu, a large work mostly concerned
with the biography of the Buddha, as well as the Suttavibhaṅga for the
nuns and the monks’ pātimokkha.
A complete Sarvāstivāda Vinaya
is preserved in Chinese at T 1435, translated by Kumārajīva in 404-409
CE. There are also a number of surviving fragments in Sanskrit.
A
full translation of the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya into Tibetan, found in
the Kanjur at D 1-7/P 1030-1036, was completed in first decade of 9th
century CE by Jinamitra of Kashmir and various others. There is a
version of this Vinaya in Chinese at T 1441-1457, largely translated by
Yijing in 703-710 CE. This translation is incomplete and full of gaps
(Frauwallner, 1956: 195). In addition to this, approximately 80 percent
of the Khandhakas exist in Sanskrit (Clarke, 2015: 75).
Apart
from a few fragments in Sanskrit and Gāndhārī, a full Dharmaguptaka
Vinaya is only preserved in Chinese at T 1428, translated by Buddhayaśas
and Zhu Fonian in 410-412 CE. Of all the extant Vinayas, this is the
one normally regarded as closest to the Theravāda Vinaya (Clarke, 2015:
69).
The Mahīśāsaka Vinaya is only extant in Chinese at T 1421,
translated by Buddhajīva from Kashmir and others in 423-424 CE from a
manuscript brought from Sri Lanka by Faxian. According to Frauwallner
(1956: 183-84), this Vinaya is full of gaps. It is closely related to
the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya (Frauwallner, 1956: 181).
Apart from
the full Vinayas listed above, there are a variety of Canonical Vinaya
texts and fragments in different languages. One significant text is the
monks’ pātimokkha of the Kāśyapīya School, available at T 1460 and
translated into Chinese by Gautama Prajñāruci in 543 CE.

Content

The Vinaya Piṭaka is divided into two main parts: the Suttavibhaṅga,
“The Analysis of the Rules,” and The Khandhakas, “the Chapters.” The
individual schools sometimes have additional texts, such as the
Parivāra, “The Compendium,” belonging to the Theravāda tradition, and
the Uttaragrantha belonging to the Mūlasarvāstivādins.
Suttavibhaṅga

Suttavibhaṅga means “Analysis of the sutta.” Sutta here does not refer
to the discourses, but rather to the pātimokkha rules as a complete set.

The Suttavibhaṅga consists of the pātimokkha rules embedded in a
commentary that analyses each rule in detail. The Suttavibhaṅga is
divided into two parts, the 227 rules for the monks and the 311 rules
for the nuns. The majority of rules are the same for the two Orders, but
130 rules are specific to the nuns and 46 specific to the monks. The
greater number of rules for the nuns is in large part due to the
subdivision of individual monks’ rules into multiple rules for the nuns
and to the fact that the nuns have rules in their pātimokkha that the
monks have in the Khandhakas.

The rules are categorised according
to the penalty incurred for breaching them. The heaviest penalty,
expulsion from the monastic Order, is incurred only for conduct that is
fundamentally opposed to monastic life, such a sexual intercourse or
murder. There are 4 such rules for the monks and 8 for the nuns. The
second heaviest penalty consists of a period of suspension and probation
during which time one is not a full member of the monastic Order. There
are 13 such rules for the monks and 17 for the nuns. The vast majority
of offenses, however, are cleared simply by confession. These rules are
subdivided into a number of categories dependent on factors such as the
severity of the breach, the sort of confession that is required, and
additional requirements such as relinquishment of wrongly acquired
requisites. The last seven rules of the Suttavibhaṅga are principles for
resolving “legal” issues. Most of the material connected with these
principles is now found in the Khandhakas.

Within the
Suttavibhaṅga, each rule is largely self-contained and forms its own
subsection. These sections begin with one or more origin stories that
relate the incident that led the Buddha to lay down a particular rule.
Many of these are no more than brief accounts of a stereotypical monk or
nun who is simply stated to have done something inappropriate. A few
are elaborate narratives that may include sub-rules or important
procedures for the monastic Order, and occasionally even sutta-type
material or Jātaka-type stories. The majority of origin stories fall
somewhere in between these two extremes.

Following the origin
story is the actual rule. In a number of cases the original rule is
later amended by the Buddha, sometimes several times, before it reaches
its final form. The rule is then analysed in detail in a word
commentary, in which each significant word of the rule is defined. These
definitions range from merely supplying a synonym to large sections
with a detailed exposition. The word commentary is always technical in
nature.

After the word commentary, many rules are further
analysed as to their applicability given a number of general scenarios.
These section normally take the form of a permutation series in which a
certain number of factors are varied in all possible combinations with
each other. These sections, too, are highly technical.

Next comes
a non-offense clause, which sets out important exemptions for each
rule. The non-offense clause is sometimes followed by a set of case
studies. These concern specific instances where a monastic acts in such a
way that it is not clear-cut whether they have committed an offense.
The incident is related and the Buddha then decides on the matter. This
section is similar in content to the origin stories. Only the first nine
rules of the monks’ pātimokkha have this section.

Comparative
study of the various pātimokkhas makes it clear that these texts in
large part go back to the pre-sectarian period of Buddhism (Pachow,
2000). As for the rest of the material in the Suttavibhaṅga, academics
normally consider this material to be significantly younger than the
pātimokkha rules (v. Hinüber, 2000: 13f), but it is nevertheless likely
that some of it goes back to the earliest period (Pachow, 2000: 14ff).
In the absence of more detailed research, it seems prudent to regard the
pātimokkha as the only part of the Suttavibhaṅga that belongs to the
Early Buddhist Texts.

But even this overstates the case, for it
is clear that not even all the pātimokkha rules belong to the earliest
period (Pachow, 2000). This is true of many, perhaps all, of the most
minor rules of the monks’ pātimokkha, the sekhiyas, but especially of
the rules for the nuns, many of which vary considerably between the
different schools, making it likely that they stem from the sectarian
period.
Khandhakas

The other main part of the Vinaya, the
Khandhakas, is a group of sections that each discuss a major area of
monastic law, such as a section on ordination, several sections on
allowable requisites, and a number of sections that deal with technical
matters. The Theravāda Khandhakas is a set of 22 sections, all of which
are matched by equivalent sections in the other existing Vinaya
recensions, with the partial exception of the Mahāsāṅghikas. The
Khandhakas of the Mahāsāṅghikas, although containing much of the same
material as the other Vinaya recensions, are structured differently.
There is as yet no scholarly consensus as to why this is the case and
what might be the implications for the historical evolution of the
Khandhakas.

The Khandhakas lack the close unifying principle
found in the Suttavibhaṅga, which, as we have seen, is organised as a
commentary and analysis of the pātimokkha rules. This makes the
Khandhakas less integrated and more diverse than the Suttavibhaṅga.

In place of the rigid structure of the Suttavibhaṅga, the Khandhakas
are loosely structured around the life story of the Buddha. After the
Buddha’s awakening, he set out to teach others about his discovery. As
he started to gain a monastic following, the need for rules and
procedures gradually arose. This need continued throughout the Buddha’s
life. It is this process that furnishes the framework for the Khandhakas
as a whole.

The “biography” of the Buddha is in fact largely
considered part of the Vinaya in all Buddhist schools. (Some schools
even include their version of the Mahāparinibbāna Sutta in the Vinaya,
rather than among the suttas, as with the Theravādins.) The Khandhakas
show ordinary interactions of the Buddha with monastics and lay people,
and we get a glimpse of the Buddha as real person, not just as the
distant teacher and leader of a large religious organisation. We see him
walking around the Ganges plain, meeting a variety of people. We see
him in close contact with his monastic disciples, criticising their
misdeeds, but also praising them when they get it right. The touching
story of the Buddha and Ven. Ānanda cleaning up a monk suffering from
dysentery is found in the Khandhakas. This close and almost personal
view of the Buddha is one factor that makes the Khandhakas a
particularly interesting collection.

One of the main functions of
the Khandhakas is to present the procedures by which the monastic
Orders conduct their business. These include the ordination procedure
and the uposatha ceremony, but also a number of other procedures that
enable the Orders to function properly. These procedures are governed by
precise rules, especially regarding democratic participation and
decentralised decision making. They allow for effective and harmonious
dispatch of monastic business.

The Khandhakas include a large
number of minor rules not found in the pātimokkha. These rules are
diverse, but can broadly be summarised as prohibiting luxuries and
sensual behaviour, both of which are incompatible with the renunciant
life.

The Khandhakas also include background stories of some of
the Buddha’s most well-known lay disciples, such as Anāthapiṇḍika,
Visākhā, and Jīvaka. There are also stories about monastic disciples,
such as the remarkable story of Pilindavaccha, the inspiring stories of
Soṇa Kolivisa and Soṇa Kuṭikaṇṇa, as well as the downfall of Devadatta.
Then there are several Jātaka-type stories, some of which are also found
in the Jātaka collection. On top of this, each section often has its
own origin story, similar to those found in the Suttavibhaṅga. But apart
from the origin stories, the Khandhakas lack the detailed exegetical
material found in the Suttavibhaṅga.

The third last chapter of
the Khandhakas deals with rules and procedures that are specific to the
nuns, including their ordination procedure. Unless specifically stated
or implied, the rest of Khandhakas are equally valid for both Orders.

The Khandhakas end with a description of the first saṅgīti, the first
“communal recitation” of the teachings after the Buddha’s passing away,
as well as the famous Vesālī affair, sometimes known as the Second
Council, where the Order with difficulty resolved a disagreement over
issues of Vinaya. The Vesālī affair is said to have happened around one
hundred years after the Buddha passed away. It is around this time that
sectarian tendencies are starting to form in the monastic Order, and
this is roughly the cut-of-point for the common heritage of all
Buddhists.
Other Texts

The Theravāda tradition includes the
Parivāra in its Vinaya Piṭaka. Oskar von Hinüber (2000: 22) suggests it
was completed no later than the first century AD. The Parivāra is an
analytical summary of the first two parts of the Vinaya. In style and
method it is sometimes compared to the Abhidhamma.

Other schools,
too, have Vinaya summaries and addenda that may or may not share
material with the Parivāra. Because of a lack of research, not much is
known about these texts. It seems clear, however, that none of them is
part of the Early Buddhist Texts.
Modern Perspectives

Most of
the early schools of Buddhism have long since disappeared, but three
Vinaya traditions are still alive: the Dharmaguptaka, practiced in East
Asia, including China and Korea; the Mūlasarvāstivāda, practiced in
Tibet and Mongolia; and the Theravāda, practiced in South and Southeast
Asia.

In practice, it is rare for monastics to follow all the
stipulations of their chosen Vinaya lineage. For instance, although the
use of money is prohibited by the pātimokkha rules of all schools, it is
nevertheless used by the vast majority of monastics. The extent to
which the rules are followed varies enormously, but most monastic do at
least follow the most important rules, that is, the rules entailing
expulsion and those entailing suspension. A similar situation holds for
the procedures that govern the Orders. Sometimes they are practiced to
the letter, such as most ordination ceremonies in the Theravāda
tradition. At other times the procedures are misinterpreted or simply
disregarded, such as the procedures for choosing the officials of the
Order.

Over the course of Buddhist history, there have been
periodic reform movements and irregular attempts at purifying the
monastic Order. Typically the Order gradually degenerates until a
charismatic leader starts a reform movement aimed at the proper practice
of the Buddhist path, including the Vinaya. These reform movement
sometimes manifest as “forest traditions,” whereby monastics establish
forest monasteries in conformity with the ideals of early Buddhism. Over
the last three decades, one controversial and ongoing reform has been
the reestablishment of an Order of nuns, bhikkhunīs, in the Theravāda
tradition.
Commentaries

Another important component of the
monastic Vinaya is the vast commentarial literature that has gradually
evolved over the centuries and millennia, and continues to do so to the
present day. All three of the living Vinaya traditions have such a
commentarial literature.

The commentarial literature begins with
the Suttavibhaṅga, which, although it is now part of the Canon, is an
early commentary on the pātimokkha rules. Next we have other Canonical
commentaries or summaries, such as the Parivāra of the Theravādins.
Beyond these, we come to the commentaries proper, the atthakathās, “The
Discussion on Meaning.”

The most important non-canonical
commentary on the Theravādin Vinaya Piṭaka is the Samantapāsādikā,
composed in Sri Lanka by Buddhaghosa in the fifth century CE based on
pre-existing commentaries that probably originated in India. There is
also another important commentary from this period, the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī,
also composed by Buddhaghosa. The next layer of commentaries are the
ṭīkās, the sub-commentaries, of which there are over a dozen, including
highly specialised literature, such as handbooks on monastery boundaries
(sīmās). Ṭīkās continue to be composed to the present day. The extent
to which the Canonical Vinaya needs to be interpreted in line with this
commentarial tradition is typically controversial, and practices vary
widely.

To navigate this vast literature, many Theravāda
monasteries rely on modern summaries for their practice of the Vinaya.
Examples include the Vinayamukha in Thai and Ajahn Ṭhānissaro’s The
Buddhist Monastic Code in English.

In addition to the above, most
Theravāda monasteries follow a number of rules that are more informal
in nature. These include rules used to distinguish individual sects
(nikāyas), such as rules on the style of robes and on the manner of
wearing them. Then there are rules that pertain to particular teacher
traditions, such as those that often form around especially charismatic
and famous teachers. The final set of rules are those laid down at
individual monasteries. These regulate the daily schedule and other
aspects of monastic life that are monastery specific. Although all these
rules are sometimes called Vinaya and therefore assumed to stem from
the Vinaya Piṭaka or at least the commentaries, in reality few of them
have any Canonical basis.
References and Further Reading

Clarke, Shayne; Vinaya Mātṛikā – Mother of the Monastic Codes, or just
Another Set of Lists?; Indo-Iranian Journal 47: 77–120, 2004
Clarke, Shayne; Vinayas; in Brill’s Encyclopaedia of Buddhism; Leiden, 2015; vol. I, pp. 60-87.
Frauwallner, Erich; The Earliest Vinaya and the Beginnings of Buddhist Literature; Rome, 1956
v. Hinüber, Oskar; A Handbook of Pāli Literature; Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, 2000
Kabilsingh, Chatsumarn (trans.); The Bhikkhunī Patimokkha of the Six Schools; Bangkok, 1991
Norman, K.R.; Pāli Literature; Otto Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden, 1983
Ñāṇatusita, Bhikkhu; A Translation and Analysis of the Pātimokkha; Kandy, 2008
Pachow, W; A Comparative Study of the Prātimokṣa; Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, 2000
Sujato, Bhikkhu; Sects and Sectarianism; Santipada, 2012
Sujato, Bhikkhu; Bhikkhunī Vinaya Studies; Santipada, 2009